1987 PLP 2527 (PCRLJ)

2. The prosecution case as disclosed by Muhammad Sabir, complainant, in Exh.P.A. is that Mst. Saira, his daughter aged about two years, was playing outside his house situated in Basti Boadpur Dakhli Mauza Qutabpur, in the area of Police Station Mumtazabad, on 7‑11‑1986, at about Dopeharwela. Muhammad Sabir, complainant, who was present inside his house, heard the cries of Mst. Saira. He immediately came out of his house and saw the accused Rahman Gul (who disclosed his name at the time of his apprehension) taking away Mst. Saira while holding her into h1s lap. He, at once, raised alarm and followed the accused, who was going hurriedly towards northern side of the lane. The alarm raised by Muhammad Sabir attracted Muhammad Hanif, P,W.2 and Umar Hayat, P.W.3, who also joined Muhammad Sabir, P.W. in the chase of the accused.

3. The accused, when noticed that all the three P. Ws. were chasing him, he threw away Mst. Saira in the street near the shop of Muhammad Hanif, P.W. and himself started running. All the three P.Ws. followed the accused and apprehended him at a small distance from the shop of Muhammad Hanif 'P. W. The accused confessed before the eye‑witnesses that he had kidnapped the girl in order to sell her. He asked them that he should be pardoned. The complainant, accompanied by the eye‑witnesses, took the accused, Rahman Gul as well as Mst. Saira towards Police Post Qutabpur and on their way to the Police Post, when they reached Basti Latifabad, they met Muhammad Aslam Hayat P.W.5, who recorded the statement Exh.P.A. of Muhammad Sabir at 2‑00 p.m. the same day. It was read over to him and he thumb marked it in token of its correctness. He sent the complaint Exh.P.A. to Police Station Mumtazabad, where formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A./1 was recorded by Mr. Sher Shah, Inspector, P.W.4, the then S.H.O. Police Station, Mumtazabad at 2‑45 p.m. Muhammad Aslam Hayat P.W.5 interrogated the accused and arrested him. He completed the investigation and got the accused challaned.

4. The prosecution has produced five witnesses in support of the charge against the accused. Muhammad Sabir, P.W.1, who is the complainant as well as father of the girl, Mst. Saira, has fully supported the F.I.R. by making the statement to the effect that when h2 came out of his house on 7‑11‑1986, at Dopeharwela, on hearing the cries of his daughter, Mst. Saira, he saw the accused, Rahman Gul, taking away Mst. Saira forcibly, in the lane and that he raised alarm which attracted Muhammad Hanif and Umar Hayat, P. Ws. He also stated that .all of them had chased the accused, whereupon the accused threw away Mst. Saira in the lane and had tried to run away but they overpowered him. He also stated that the accused had confessed before them that he had kidnapped Mst. Saira in order to sell her and asked for pardon. But they had taken him towards the Police Post, where the case was registered at his instance vide complaint Exh . P . A .

5. Muhammad Hanif, P.W.2, who is also the eye‑witness, has supported the complainant by saying that he runs a shop in the room of the house in the lane where the accused was taking the girl Mst. Saira aged about two years daughter of Muhammad Sabir and that on the alarm raised by Muhammad Sabir, he and Umar Hayat, P.W. had also chased the accused, who threw the girl near the shop and tried to run away but was apprehended by them at some distance. Umar Hayat P.W.3 is also an eye‑witness. He also gave similar statement to that of Muhammad Hanif P.W. and supported the prosecution case, P.W.4 Sher Shah Inspector deposed that he drafted formal F.I.R. Exh.PA/1 on the basis of the complaint Exh.P.A. at 2‑45 P.M. on 7‑11‑1987. P.W.5 Muhammad Aslam Hayat, S.I. Police is the Investigating Officer. He has stated that when he was present in Basti Latifabad, in connection with the patrol duty on 7‑11‑1986, Muhammad Sabir, complainant, Muhammad Hanif and Umar Hayat P.Ws. had brought Rahman Gul accused of this case as well as Mst. Saira (daughter of Muhammad Sabir) aged about 2 years and he had recorded the statement Exh.P.A. of Muhammad Sabir, P.W. at 2‑00 p.m. He also stated that on the personal search of the accused, a dagger has been recovered and that he interrogated the accused and arrested him. He has also stated to have sent the complaint to the Police Station and investigated the case. He recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared the rough sketch of the place of occurrence Exh.P.B.

6. The accused, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and stated that he had gone to Muhammad Hanif P.W. for getting alm being a beggar, upon which he had an altercation with him. He and Muhammad Hanif, P.W. had grappled with each other and, thereafter, he was falsely implicated in this case by Muhammad Hanif P.W. with the connivance of other P.Ws. The accused declined to appear as his own witness in disproof of the charges against him as provided under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. He also declined to produce evidence in, defence.

7. I have heard arguments addressed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel and have gone through the entire evidence. As already stated, the eye‑witnesses, namely, Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Hanif and Umar Hayat, have fully supported the prosecution case against the accused. Muhammad Hanif and Umar Hayat P.Ws. are residents of the same locality and out of them, Muhammad Hanif, P.W. runs a shop in the lane where the occurrence took place. They were quite consistent in their statements on the material point.

8. Learned defence counsel has argued that the evidence of the eye‑witnesses in contradictory because according to Muhammad Sabir P.W. the accused had been apprehended by them at the distance of 15 karams from his house. Meaning thereby that the accused was apprehended near the shop of Muhammad Hanif, P.W. while Muhammad Hanif and Umar Hayat have stated that the accused was apprehended at the distance of 15 karams from the shop of Muhammad Hanif. The learned defence counsel has also argued that the presence of Muhammad Sabir complainant in his house at noon‑time and that of Umar Hayat P.W. at the time of occurrence is unnatural because it was Dopeharwela and both the witnesses, being labourers, were not supposed to be present in their houses and, therefore, their evidence should not be believed.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the points raised by the learned defence counsel. The contradictions pointed out in the evidence of .the eye‑witnesses are not so material as to cast doubt on the verasity. All of them are‑unanimous that the accused had kidnapped Mst. Saira and that the accused had been apprehended in the lane where the shop of Muhammad Hanif is situated. The contradiction pointed out by the learned defence counsel relates to the exact place of apprehension of the accused. The witnesses have appeared in Court after about a year of the occurrence and such type of minor contradictions are apt to appear in straightforward witnesses. The parrot like narration of facts with mathematical precisions has never been taken as trustworthy and reliable evidence.

10. Argument of the learned defence counsel that the complainant Muhammad Sabir as well as Umar Hayat, being labourers, were not expected to be present at their houses, is also devoid of any force.. They have fully explained in their evidence that both of them are labourers by profession working with the masons and, therefore, these type of labourers are not supposed to get any regular leave. They generally remain in their houses whenever they like to do so. Both of them have explained the reasons for their not going to the work on the day of occurrence. Their presence at the place of occurrence is further verified from the circumstances i.e. they had met the S.I. Muhammad Aslam Hayat P.W.5 at 2‑00 p.m. at Basti Latifabad, at a distance of 11 or 2 furlongs from the place of occurrence, where the complaint Exh.P.A. had been recorded which amply shows that they were present in the vicinity at noon‑time. The plea of the accused that he had been falsely implicated, in the case by Muhammad Hanif P.W., does not sound reasonably true because the accused was not known to Muhammad Hanif P.W. previously and the fact, in itself that he had gone there as beggar to get alms look quite ridiculous because he is a man of stout health and there seems no reason to believe that he was roaming about as a beggar especially when no whereabouts or means of livelihood or any other connection in the city has been disclosed by the accused even in this Court. The recovery of dagger as stated by S.I. as well as eye‑witnesses from the personal search of the accused is another circumstance to belie the version of the defence. The accused declined to appear as witness under section 340(2) and his refusal to depose on oath shall also raise a presumption against him. On the other hand, all the) eye‑witnesses are independent, they have no enmity against the accused and they are residents of the same locality and therefore, there is no reason to believe that they would come forward to level false charge against the accused, who is not known to them previously.'

11. After considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the whole case, I am convinced that the prosecution has fully established its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and the defence version put forward by the accused is not such. as to look reasonably true. 12 The learned defence counsel has further, argued that the evidence about the intention to kidnap consists of the extra‑judicial confession of the accused at the time of his apprehension by the, P.Ws., which is a weak type of evidence and, therefore, the offence under section 364‑A. P.P. C. is not made out. I have considered this aspect as well and do not find any force in this contention. The intention is to be gathered from the evidence and circumstances as well. As the eye‑witnesses have stated that the accused had confessed before them that he had kidnapped the girl in order to sell her. Apart from this, the accused was a resident of Tribal area. He has not given any object of his visit to Multan. He has not disclosed any means of livelihood. His intention, therefore, was quite clear. He had kidnapped the girl in order to subject her to slavery. The offence under section 364‑A, P.P.C. was clearly made out.

13. The cases of child‑lifting have become very common. The act of abduction makes the life of the abductee as well as parents miserable. The agony and sufferings of a person, whose girl is kidnapped, can be very well imagined. The result is that the accused is convicted under section 364‑A P.P.C. for kidnapping Mst. Saira from the lawful guardianship of Muhammad Sabir, her father, in order to subject her to slavery and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

14. The accused has been supplied the copy of this judgment and has been told that he .can file appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Pakistan within seven days. The copy has also been supplied to the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. M.A. K./S‑122/L Accused sentenced.